Fuel Economy

It wasn't windy the days I traveled. I really can't complain because it was still at the Mazda mileage rating. I have just been so used to exceeding that rating in the summer when I at least got 43 to 46 mpg. I drove my old 626 for 25 years and 360,000 miles. I never touched the fuel injection system ( except change the fuel filter once ). And the mileage was always consistent summer or winter (34 to 36 mpg on trips).
Guess with a higher tech engine, mileage will take a bigger hit when conditions are not just right.
 
Last edited:
timberstx said:
It wasn't windy the days I traveled. I really can't complain because it was still at the Mazda mileage rating. I have just been so used to exceeding that rating in the summer when I at least got 43 to 46 mpg. I drove my old 626 for 25 years and 360,000 miles. I never touched the fuel injection system ( except change the fuel filter once ). And the mileage was always consistent summer or winter (34 to 36 mpg on trips).
Guess with a higher tech engine, mileage will take a bigger hit when conditions are not just right.
Click to expand...

43 to 46 Looks almost surreal unless you have any economods on your car like efficient hubcaps, lowered stance and grille covers etc. 43 mpg highway is more than a honda Fit / Civic - I think you need to mention how much you hypermile or if you have engine tuned for more fuel efficiency.
Driving responsibly I do get 27+ mpg on my FWD in city + highway - need to see if it changes after oil change and when tires are worn out a bit.
 
Kaps said:
43 to 46 Looks almost surreal unless you have any economods on your car like efficient hubcaps, lowered stance and grille covers etc. 43 mpg highway is more than a honda Fit / Civic - I think you need to mention how much you hypermile or if you have engine tuned for more fuel efficiency.
Driving responsibly I do get 27+ mpg on my FWD in city + highway - need to see if it changes after oil change and when tires are worn out a bit.
Click to expand...

Well it also does help that the 2.0L uses 25% less fuel compared to the 2.5L just by virtue of volume alone. 32-40mpg was the norm on our 2013 model. Coupled with a careful relaxed driver, it is not hard to break 40MPG.

Unfortunately too many people complained about the lack of power, so Mazda had to install the thirstier 2.5L motor instead. (dunno)
 
mazdadude said:
Well it also does help that the 2.0L uses 25% less fuel compared to the 2.5L just by virtue of volume alone. 32-40mpg was the norm on our 2013 model. Coupled with a careful relaxed driver, it is not hard to break 40MPG.

Unfortunately too many people complained about the lack of power, so Mazda had to install the thirstier 2.5L motor instead. (dunno)
Click to expand...

That's not quite how things work. the 2.5L does not use 25% more fuel because it has 25% more displacement :)
It all depends on the conditions that the engine is operated under, and in some rare cases the 2.5L might actually use less fuel than the 2.0.
 
Kaps said:
Oh the 2.0L - got it.
Click to expand...
It's the 2.0L AND 6-speed manual transmission! I always believe we can beat automatic transmission with a manual on fuel economy with our common sense! :)
 
piotrek91 said:
That's not quite how things work. the 2.5L does not use 25% more fuel because it has 25% more displacement :)
It all depends on the conditions that the engine is operated under, and in some rare cases the 2.5L might actually use less fuel than the 2.0.
Click to expand...
Yes, and SA-G 2.0L also has lighter weight with no balance shaft which also helps the fuel economy.
 
I have a 2016.5 with 5,600 miles on it, my average is 27.5, mixed driving, but I live in a rural area and don't spend much time at lights. I figure it will go down some over winter with colder temps and winter gas. No long highway trips so far.
 
Only had our GT for two weeks, great car so far......(2thumbs) but I'm sure I will be disappointed in the mileage (lol2) Traded up to the CX-5 from TDI Jetta that cranked out 35ish in the city and 50ish on the highway. Now if I can just remember to grab the gasoline nozzle and not the diesel one......(lol2)

Sam
 
Oncebitten said:
This. My Ram 2500 with a Hemi got 9.9. Period.
Click to expand...

yeah my old ram got 10 city, 11 highway LOL


as far as current mileage in my CX-5. i get right around 23.5-24mpg on back roads (no highway driving) on my commute to work every day. and that's with my bigger, heavier all terrains and roof rack.
 
piotrek91 said:
That's not quite how things work. the 2.5L does not use 25% more fuel because it has 25% more displacement :)
It all depends on the conditions that the engine is operated under, and in some rare cases the 2.5L might actually use less fuel than the 2.0.
Click to expand...

It is not THAT cut and dry, but in order to get a 14.7:1 ratio of fuel to air in the cylinder, it is almost that simple...
 
Tracked 2350 miles & fill-ups through 12/1 on my new 16.5 GT AWD.

28.67 mpg. 66% hwy, 33% city?

Today's fill-up: 24.93 mpg. Winter gas? More city?
 
Kedis82ZE8 said:
Funny how perception of vehicle power changes over time... I remember as a kid I though the 152HP (3.0L V6) in my '87 Maxima was more than adequate. I think that car basically weighed about the same as a CX-5 too.
Click to expand...

It's because more and more vehicles are more and more capable. But yeah, by the time I sold it, my C6 Z06 felt "slow". People are VERY adaptable. Ever see anyone missing a limb? After a while, they look like they don't notice. THAT is adaptable.
 
mazdadude said:
It is not THAT cut and dry, but in order to get a 14.7:1 ratio of fuel to air in the cylinder, it is almost that simple...
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that volumetric consumption of a chamber (or cylinder in this specific case) has just as much (if not more) to do with rpm/cyclic rate than displacement...
 
EPA does not test all vehicles - instead they do a sample. Not sure what that sample is based on or is it fully random or are we aware if EPA did test CX-5 or let Mazda do it as per specs and used those figures.

Today morning traffic was light and i drove like a grandpa - very slow acc. - approaching smallish hills on highway speed went down to 60 from 65 and then gingerly went up again. My RPMs were mostly above 1000 and under 2000.
Also noted hypermiling does not work as well as it would in a Civic for e.g. - going downhill my speed decreased - guess this is because of more sure footed ness or control and when the mazda senses foot is off the accelerator it tries to hold or reduce the speed for better handling.

If Mazda did the EPA testing itself - then there is a speed curve it needs to maintain - truth be told due to the heavy traffic here there are many occasions of slowing down and speeding up which seems to hurt CX5s mpgs probably even more. I have no idea how that speed curve looks but if its more gingerly (you can bet your mpgs will go up).

Meanwhile has anyone tried hypermiling down a small hill by putting it in fake manual mode? I would try that and let you know. Boy there were some pissed drivers but since it was light on traffic they found overtaking opportunities.

My trip computer never shows more than 27 mpg - today after 2 trips of 25 miles each this tank the computer shows upwards of 30.
 
I got 45 mpg from Galveston to Houston on one trip, About 60 to 65 mph. Another round trip from Houston to San Antonio netted about the same. It was summer trips, so as someone mentioned winter blends are worse on mileage, which I never knew before because it never seemed to affect the 626.
I have no mods, just completely stock. I have always exceeded the mpg rating on all my mazdas. My 85 GLC hatchback was rated 38mpg highway. I usually got about 45, sometimes up to 48.
Here is a pic of my dash after my galveston trip.
When I first drove the CX-5 2.0, with the manual transmission. I knew this is not a fast car. But after living with it, I am sorry to see mazda drop the 2.0. The quick steering, great shifter, and suspension and handling more than make up for not being as fast as some cars out there. But I do find with less power I have a more relaxing drive. I know when I get on the street, there are people out there that will fool with you. With this car I will not be winning any races, so I get step aside.
I then get to enjoy my music and shifting. I dont drive fast, but I have taken interchanges in Houston a little too fast for comfort. There is one I10 east, to 59 north that is a little deceiving. You need to slow down for it. The first time I took it a little fast, and just pointed the CX-5 in the direction I needed, and the suspension must have done something and put the car right where it was supposed to be. I have never seen a barrier so banged up from cars crashing into it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1794.jpg
    IMG_1794.jpg
    804.9 KB · Views: 2,429
Last edited:
I have a 2015 Touring (2.5)
My absolute average is 26 MPG.
The best on one tank of fuel is 31.
The worst is 22.4.

I do have a heavy foot, but it is driven by my wife the most nowadays, albeit she doesn't get much better ratings either, but she definitely pulls the average up :)

Detailed stats:
https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/detail/689600.html?cdetail=1

(that was the only MPG tracking site I knew existed when I bought the car, if you want to convert, Google can help, e.g. "9.4 l/100km in MPG")
 
craigo said:
And the winter MPG threads start! They go away with warmer weather.

- Winter blend gas is less energetic
- Cold engines use more gas as they warm up to temp
- Winter weather is often windy; wind has a big effect on mpg
- Tire pressure might be off spec

Meanwhile the EPA ratings...
- Conducted around 70 degrees in a lab
- No headwind
- Use pure gasoline and not a blend
- May have a different idea of 'city' and 'highway' driving...
Click to expand...
I have to admit, gas mileage is really sucking this year with the winter tires and cold weather. Was averaging around 30 with the all seasons on in warmer weather, now it seems I'm stuck around the 26 mpg mark. Last year this time I was hovering around 28 mpg.
 
madar said:
I have to admit, gas mileage is really sucking this year with the winter tires and cold weather. Was averaging around 30 with the all seasons on in warmer weather, now it seems I'm stuck around the 26 mpg mark. Last year this time I was hovering around 28 mpg.
Click to expand...

I have seen the same thing as well. Really weird because I still always push around 27 and up with my usual commute and typical daily driving. I'm around 25 now. Not sure what's up. My tire pressure is around 35 which is normal, but I usually do run around 38. Been meaning to fill them up but I don't think they'll make that much of a difference but we'll see.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
2023 CX-5 Turbo MPG Keeps Getting Better
Replies
1
Views
921
ceric
ceric
J
    • Like
CX-5 Fuel efficiency, comfort and handling
Replies
12
Views
3K
sonny1
S
S
Average MPG less than 20mpg, am I alone?
7 8 9
Replies
176
Views
23K
jadmt
jadmt

Latest posts

Back